Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-021-v001] "Expansionof t

  • To: secretariat at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-021-v001] "Expansionof the initialallocation space for existing IPv6 address space holders"
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:01:52 -0700
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>,<mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <414A84DD.5050601@apnic.net>
    • 
        I am not sure what "subsequent allocation criteria." means or is exactly.
      Is there a definitive written description?
      
      APNIC Secretariat wrote:
      
      > Dear colleagues
      >
      > APNIC welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions on the following
      > policy proposal:
      >
      > ____________________
      >
      > Final call for comments: [prop-021-v001]
      > "Expansion of the initial allocation space for existing IPv6 address
      > space holders"
      > ____________________
      >
      > This is the final call for comments on policy proposal [prop-021-v001]
      > "Expansion of the initial allocation space for existing IPv6 address
      > space holders". This is a proposal to allow existing IPv6 address
      > holders to expand their initial allocation, using their existing IPv4
      > infrastructure to justify an allocation larger than a /32. The use of
      > IPv4 infrastructure to justify a larger initial allocation was passed
      > at APNIC 17 [prop-016-v002]. This current proposal allows networks
      > that received an initial allocation before prop-0160-v001 to be given
      > the same opportunity to recieve an initial allcoation greater than /32.
      >
      > This proposal was presented at APNIC 18 and the following consensus was
      > reached:
      >
      >      "to implement the proposal to expand IPv6 address space holdings
      >       for existing users without satisfying the subsequent allocation
      >       criteria."
      >
      > This proposal is now submitted to the sig-policy mailing list for an
      > eight week discussion period. At the end of that period, if consensus
      > appears to have been achieved, the Chair of the Policy SIG will
      > ask the Executive Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.
      >
      > *   Send all comments and questions to:   <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
      > *   Deadline for comments:                12 November 2004
      >
      > _____________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Proposal details
      > _____________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Introduction:
      >
      > I propose making it possible for existing IPv6 address holders with
      > the initial allocation address space to expand their address space
      > without clearing the subsequent allocation requirement.
      >
      > This proposal has reached a consensus at JPNIC Open Policy Meeting.
      >
      > Summary of the current problem:
      >
      > In the past, many of the organizations had requested for the minimum
      > allocation size(/32) as an initial allocation due to the following
      > reasons:
      >
      >   + Based on the idea of the "slow start" in IPv4 policy, many
      >     organizations believed it would be difficult to justify all of their
      >     address requirements at an initial allocation.
      >
      >   + It was difficult to estimate their needs as IPv6 network was not
      >     commercially developed. Many organizations requested for address
      >     space for a test service in order to kick off the commercial
      >     service, not for the commercial service itself.
      >
      >   + `PROVISIONAL IPv6 ASSIGNMENT AND ALLOCATION POLICY DOCUMENT'
      >     specified the initial allocation size as /35. LIRs which received
      >     allocations under this policy were only allowed an upgrade of
      >     their allocations to a /32.
      >
      > In recent days, most of the ISPs learned that /32 space is too small
      > for the real scale service deployment if they cover their existing
      > IPv4 users.
      >
      > Organizations currently requesting for initial allocations can simply
      > request for a larger space as the RIRs actively emphasize to their
      > communities that they are able to request for allocations greater than
      > /32, which is already a common practice.
      >
      > However, ISPs with the default address space need to design the IPv6
      > service network within the small space untill they clear the
      > subsequent allocation requirement (HD-Ratio) for more address
      > space. This makes the real IPv6 service deployment difficult,
      > especially for large ISPs.
      >
      > Situation in other RIRs:
      >
      > none.
      >
      > Details of your proposal:
      >
      > Existing IPv6 initial allocation address holders should be able to
      > expand their address space without satisfying subsequent allocation
      > criteria if they are able to demonstrate their concrete plan. The same
      > criteria should apply as organizations requesting for an initial
      > allocation larger than /32.
      >
      > This proposal does not intend to change the current policy but to
      > apply the current allocation practice to existing IPv6 address
      > holders.
      >
      > If it is possible to expand the address space under the current
      > policy, it is desirable to be documented clearly (e.g. in the
      > guidelines document).
      >
      > Advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed policy:
      >
      > Advantages:
      >
      > Existing IPv6 address holders will be possible to start their services
      > under up-to-date situation.
      >
      > Disadvantages:
      >
      > none
      >
      > Effect on APNIC members:
      >
      > The expanded address space would be considered in the assessment of
      > the APNIC membership tier of the organization, on the renewal of their
      > membership.
      >
      > Effect on NIRs:
      >
      > NIRs providing IPv6 address allocation service should apply the same
      > policy.
      >
      > ____________________
      >
      > References
      > ____________________
      >
      > Proposal details including full text of proposal, presentations, links
      > to relevant meeting minutes, and links to mailing list discussions are
      > available at:
      >
      >       http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-021-v001.html
      >
      > ______________________________________________________________________
      > APNIC Secretariat                              <secretariat at apnic dot net>
      > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)   Tel: +61-7-3858-3100
      > PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia            Fax: +61-7-3858-3199
      > Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, QLD                http://www.apnic.net
      > ______________________________________________________________________
      >
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      
      Regards,
      --
      Jeffrey A. Williams
      Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
      "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
          Pierre Abelard
      
      "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
      liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
      P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
      United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
      ===============================================================
      Updated 1/26/04
      CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
      IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
      E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
       Registered Email addr with the USPS
      Contact Number: 214-244-4827